One of the largest financial operations in Poland is quietly unfolding behind closed doors. With no public oversight and little regard for the interests of ordinary citizens. “Transparency in this case should mean communicating clearly with both the public and the market about the reasons behind the decisions (…), because otherwise it creates the impression of backroom deals. That should not be happening, because the issue is far too significant for decisions to be made without minutes being taken and without anyone knowing who made them,” former Finance Minister Andrzej Kosztowniak told Niezalezna.pl.
Because… money likes silence
Poland has been working for four years on reforming its benchmark interest rates. The goal is to replace the widely used WIBOR benchmark, which determines interest payments on mortgage loans, bonds, and numerous other financial contracts. According to various estimates, the reform affects a market worth between PLN 7 trillion and PLN 10 trillion.
Decisions that are crucial not only for this market but also for ordinary citizens taking out loans are being made by a small group of officials, bankers, and regulators serving on the Steering Committee of the National Working Group on Benchmark Reform. On Monday, Money.pl reported on the issue, pointing to a lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
According to the outlet, the key decisions are made by just several individuals—officially eight—behind closed doors. They represent the Ministry of Finance, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), the National Bank of Poland (NBP), the Bank Guarantee Fund (BFG), GPW Benchmark, and the banking sector.
Minutes of the committee’s meetings—if they are even prepared—are not made public. Participants and others familiar with the progress of the work refuse to speak on the record. It is also unclear who voted in favour of what, or why, as access to such information is restricted on the grounds of alleged confidentiality.
The Steering Committee does not include anyone representing the interests of retail customers, and the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has neither been involved in the process nor asked to issue an opinion or conduct an information campaign. As a result, bank customers may be asked to sign amendments to their contracts without fully understanding how the changes will affect their monthly loan repayments.
Money.pl points out that in a comparable process, “Denmark’s central bank publishes the composition of the working group, meeting agendas, and approved minutes, including recorded dissenting opinions.” “In Poland, the public usually learns that the Steering Committee has met only when a final recommendation has already been issued,” the outlet writes.
So no one can say “Tusk made mortgages more expensive”
Despite four years of work, no stable replacement for WIBOR has yet been selected from the three benchmarks under consideration—WIRON, PolSTR, and WRR—that would be fully based on actual market transactions.
“WRR produced the highest projected values of all the options considered, but there was a desire to avoid accusations that Morawiecki gave borrowers the lowest benchmark while Tusk introduced the highest. In the end, PolSTR was chosen—a safer version of WIRON, less prone to errors because it is calculated using a narrower set of transactions, though still less favourable for the banking sector than WRR,” Money.pl reports.
The original plan was ambitious. However, due to legal concerns—including the risk of litigation and potential constitutional issues arising from the mandatory replacement of the benchmark in existing contracts, particularly government bonds—the use of WIBOR was extended by nine years, until the problematic bonds mature.
The Ministry of Finance insists it played no role in the decision. However, given the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, it is difficult to dismiss allegations of political motivations and attempts to protect the interests of the banking sector at the expense of retail customers.
Transparency above all
Speaking to Niezalezna.pl, former Finance Minister Andrzej Kosztowniak (Law and Justice, PiS) said that the number of people participating in the work of the Steering Committee of the National Working Group on Benchmark Reform is not what matters.
“If these individuals have been appointed by their respective institutions, they may well be supported by teams preparing analyses for them. These people simply represent the institutions that nominated them,” he said.
He stressed that what should concern the public is “how these decisions are made” and whether the people making them “base their decisions on thoroughly prepared and reliable source materials.”
At the same time, he pointed to the absence of a “social factor” in the decision-making process—above all, the lack of UOKiK’s involvement.
“It would be beneficial for a representative of the ‘customer’ to participate in these meetings. Naturally, confidential information is discussed at such meetings, but UOKiK should have its own representative there, who could be bound by confidentiality,” he explained.
“It is obvious that the institutions involved have conflicting interests. In my opinion, that is why it has been so difficult to adopt a solution. There should be two overriding objectives: those preparing the reform and the politicians should create a market that is as predictable as possible and, ultimately, as affordable as possible for customers. All of this affects—or will affect—the cost of loans and bonds for people purchasing these financial products,” he added.
Kosztowniak also said that “it would be a good idea to keep the public informed about the committee’s work, as is done in Denmark.”
“I see no reason why we could not make the process more transparent. But what is particularly important is knowing who made which decisions and how they justified them. This is not a social club where people meet over a beer. They are making decisions affecting an enormous market, and every element of those decisions should be backed by detailed and compelling reasoning. If changes are introduced, we need to be certain they will remain in force for the next dozen, or perhaps several dozen, years,” he stressed.
He also noted that the WIRON benchmark proposed during the reform process “may not be the easiest to predict, but it is ultimately the cheapest.”
“If Prime Minister Donald Tusk believes today that someone acted improperly by making or proposing such decisions, he has every right to say so. But if he proposes a solution that may ultimately prove more expensive, then he should come forward and explain it, because we, as customers, will bear the cost. I would like to hear that explanation—not only as a politician, but as a citizen,” Andrzej Kosztowniak said.
According to the former minister, “transparency in this case should mean communicating clearly with both the public and the market about the reasons behind the decisions.”
“Then those decisions will always be easier to understand, because otherwise it creates the impression of backroom deals. That should not be happening, because the issue is far too significant for decisions to be made without minutes being taken and without anyone knowing who made them. Especially since these people represent very different institutions and very different interests. We should therefore know who is making which decisions, and those making decisions on behalf of these institutions should be able to explain them to us. The less justification there is, the more doubts will arise—and transparency is the greatest value in this entire process,” Andrzej Kosztowniak concluded.